Sunday, July 23, 2006

This is from the blog A Taxing Matter written by
Linda Beale, a "law
professor at the University of Illinois College of law who teaches various
courses in the area of federal income tax--statutory construction (tax),
introduction to federal income tax, corporate taxation, and introduction to
international taxation":

Florida's "Biblical Use" Exemption, by Linda M Beale: A new Florida statute
(L. 2006, H 7183 (c. 164)) takes effect on the first of July. It provides an
exemption from ad valorem tax for the use of property owned by a 501(c)(3) tax
exempt organization to "exhibit, illustrate, and interpret Biblical manuscripts,
codices, stone tablets, and other Biblical archives, provide live and recorded
demonstrations, explanations, reenactments, and illustrations of Biblical
history and worship; and exhibit times, places, and events of Biblical history
and significance." Id.

Now, this is clearly not a federal tax issue (the State is merely using the
federal tax-exempt organization category as a part of its definition for the tax
expenditure). But is it a constitutional one? Is it really cricket for a state
to single out events and exhibits related to the Bible for a tax exemption? Yes,
parts of the Bible are sacred to both Jews and Christians, but isn't this
providing the imprimatur of the state selectively to the Judeo-Christian
heritage over all other religious heritages (Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.)?
Maybe the legislators who passed this law, and Jeb Bush who signed it into law
on June 9, would argue that it is merely a form of support for a particular type
of historical scholarship/experience that just happens to be closely connected
to fundamentalist Christian views.

But the facts, as always, are telling. This legislation was passed to aid a
specific entity--a Christian theme park in Orlando, Florida called the Holy Land
Experience. See this discussion in the St. Petersburg Times. The park is quite
profitable, and the local county in which it is located tried to tax it (about
$300,000 a year). The park argued that the profits financed its Christian
ministry and so it was entitled to a property exemption. The park won the first
round in court, but the county appealed. Then the legislature decided to step in
and make sure that the institution couldn't be taxed. The county has now
conceded defeat on the issue and dropped its suit for back taxes. See Holy Land
Experience Wins Final Round. The Republican state senator who sponsored the bill
said it was intended to cover only the Christian theme park and that it had been
"stiffly worded" to ensure that object. Id. But, of course, there are always
loopholes that can be exploited. Apparently a creationist group that runs a
dinosaur park is trying to become eligible for the exemption now. Id.

Even conceding arguendo the constitutional concern (i.e., a violation of the
First Amendment Establishment Clause because the state is selectively endorsing
a particular religion), I wonder about the wisdom of this kind of preferential
treatment for activities so closely associated with evangelical Christians
today. We are a pluralistic society with people whose roots lie in many
different cultural and religious heritages. Where is the state regard for the
Koran, the Vedas and the history of religious societies and worship that those
documents represent? Our basic notion of respect for individuals depends on
respectful treatment of each person's core beliefs and values, even though they
may differ from our own. Florida seems to have missed the boat here.

The Tax Foundation doesn't much like the exemption, either (one of the few
times our positions are not diametrically opposed). Predictably, it doesn't
express much concern for the impact on democracy, but it does note the market
distortions when one theme park gets an exemption because of its religious
affiliation and all the others have to compete against that favored position.
See this item on the Tax Foundation site.

By the way, this is not the only time that Florida has been in hot water over
tax exemptions applying preferentially to religions. There is also a lawsuit
underway by a Wiccan group that is contesting the Florida sales and use tax
exemption for religious books. See here. The Wiccan group apparently was charged
sales tax on a Satanic Bible but not on a Christian Bible. Even though it is
considered a church in Florida, the incident led it to contest the
constitutionality of the statute that exempts religious publications from tax.
The Florida Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. See this Florida Baptist
Witness story (the paper filed an amicus brief in favor of the religioius tax
exemption).

One has to wonder just which publications qualify as religious publications?
The Bible, Koran, Torah. Is any publication by a seminarian or theologian or
even a scholar in a religious studies department a religious publication? If so,
why? If not, why not? What about a publication of the writings of Martin Buber?
Is every publication by the Catholic Church a per se religious publication? What
about publications by the State of Israel?

Apparently, one supporter of the religious materials tax exemption thinks
that changes to court personnel (presumably, the Florida Supreme Court, but this
could also reach the U.S. Supreme Court) guarantee a religion-friendly outcome
to the case.

According to Mathew Staver, president of the right-wing Liberty Council,
which has ... filed a brief in favor of the law, "In case the Wiccans haven't
been paying attention lately, they should realize the times have changed. We
have a new court." Carl Jones, Daily Business Review, Wiccan Lawsuit May Spell
Toil, Taxes and Trouble for Fla. Justices (Nov. 21, 2005).

As someone who believes strongly in the importance of maintaining the
separation of church and state, I find that statement worrisome. The
Establishment Clause protects religious groups as well as those who are not
religious. The trend towards bringing religion into the political discourse,
funding religious groups with tax revenues (in ways that are not always careful
to ensure that the tax funds are not being used to proselytyze), and providing
special tax subsidies or exemptions for religious groups (especially for
activities that are identified with Christian groups) suggests that we are
forgetting the Salem witch trials and all the other problems that develop when
there is no wall between church and state.

TrackBack

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Florida's "Biblical Use" Exemption

This is from the blog A Taxing Matter written by
Linda Beale, a "law
professor at the University of Illinois College of law who teaches various
courses in the area of federal income tax--statutory construction (tax),
introduction to federal income tax, corporate taxation, and introduction to
international taxation":

Florida's "Biblical Use" Exemption, by Linda M Beale: A new Florida statute
(L. 2006, H 7183 (c. 164)) takes effect on the first of July. It provides an
exemption from ad valorem tax for the use of property owned by a 501(c)(3) tax
exempt organization to "exhibit, illustrate, and interpret Biblical manuscripts,
codices, stone tablets, and other Biblical archives, provide live and recorded
demonstrations, explanations, reenactments, and illustrations of Biblical
history and worship; and exhibit times, places, and events of Biblical history
and significance." Id.

Now, this is clearly not a federal tax issue (the State is merely using the
federal tax-exempt organization category as a part of its definition for the tax
expenditure). But is it a constitutional one? Is it really cricket for a state
to single out events and exhibits related to the Bible for a tax exemption? Yes,
parts of the Bible are sacred to both Jews and Christians, but isn't this
providing the imprimatur of the state selectively to the Judeo-Christian
heritage over all other religious heritages (Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.)?
Maybe the legislators who passed this law, and Jeb Bush who signed it into law
on June 9, would argue that it is merely a form of support for a particular type
of historical scholarship/experience that just happens to be closely connected
to fundamentalist Christian views.

But the facts, as always, are telling. This legislation was passed to aid a
specific entity--a Christian theme park in Orlando, Florida called the Holy Land
Experience. See this discussion in the St. Petersburg Times. The park is quite
profitable, and the local county in which it is located tried to tax it (about
$300,000 a year). The park argued that the profits financed its Christian
ministry and so it was entitled to a property exemption. The park won the first
round in court, but the county appealed. Then the legislature decided to step in
and make sure that the institution couldn't be taxed. The county has now
conceded defeat on the issue and dropped its suit for back taxes. See Holy Land
Experience Wins Final Round. The Republican state senator who sponsored the bill
said it was intended to cover only the Christian theme park and that it had been
"stiffly worded" to ensure that object. Id. But, of course, there are always
loopholes that can be exploited. Apparently a creationist group that runs a
dinosaur park is trying to become eligible for the exemption now. Id.

Even conceding arguendo the constitutional concern (i.e., a violation of the
First Amendment Establishment Clause because the state is selectively endorsing
a particular religion), I wonder about the wisdom of this kind of preferential
treatment for activities so closely associated with evangelical Christians
today. We are a pluralistic society with people whose roots lie in many
different cultural and religious heritages. Where is the state regard for the
Koran, the Vedas and the history of religious societies and worship that those
documents represent? Our basic notion of respect for individuals depends on
respectful treatment of each person's core beliefs and values, even though they
may differ from our own. Florida seems to have missed the boat here.